Doing right and doing good is not the same
In the second half of the 19th century, the largest ships were predominantly ferries. These ferries moved huge numbers of people from one place to another within close proximity to the shore. Logically, the regulations that outlined the responsibilities of the ship owners were based on how ships were used at that time— as ferries.
By the time the Titanic was ready in 1912, these regulations had not yet been updated to reflect this new breed of ocean-going vessels. The Titanic carried as many lifeboats as was required by the law, which was sixteen. However, the problem was that the Titanic was four times larger than the largest legal classification of ships during those days. The Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, the Titanic’s owner, just adhered to the outdated regulation (in fact, they added four more inflatable rafts…).
Unfortunately, as we all know, on April 14, 1912, just four days after leaving port on its maiden voyage, the Titanic struck an iceberg far from any shoreline. There were not enough lifeboats for everyone and more than 1500 of the 2224 passengers and crew on board died as a result. Imagine: a ship four times bigger than the largest classification carried only a quarter of the lifeboats that was actually needed. The tragic part of the story is that there was space for extra lifeboats onboard the Titanic. In fact, additional space was added aboard the deck of the Titanic in expectation of a “lifeboats for all” requirement. But lifeboats were expensive, they required maintenance and they could affect a ship’s stability. So the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company decided not to add the lifeboats until the regulation said they had to. Was this correct behaviour? Oh yes, because the company was in full compliance with the applicable rules. At the same time, however, the whole shipping industry lobbied against the change in regulations in the early twentieth century, arguing that having so many lifeboats sitting visibly on the decks would hurt business. And why? Because people would think their vessels were unsafe...
History repeated itself in the 1950s. Car manufacturers used the same arguments at a moment when seat belt requirements were being considered. They feared that the existence of a seat belt would lead people to think their cars were unsafe. And sadly enough, history repeats itself with the Apples and Googles of this world who argument against paying taxes because their actual tax liability would hurt their ability to compete. Are their actions and their thinking legal? Maybe. Is it ethical? No, it’s not.
Question to the readers of this article: what is the ethical compass of your company? What is your ethical compass? Personally, I believe you can only do right by doing good. And that's not always easy.
Latest articles by Filip
- The power of reversible decisions
- Leaders should be genius spotters
- Unintended consequences
- Prepare for pre-flight quarantine
- Bias for action
- Dare to differ
- Be like bamboo
- Uncovering new forms of value
- The case for courage
- The Backwards Law
- Inspiring people with obvious insights
- You are the first domino
- Drive your brain in reverse
- Reidentify your identity
- Define your turn-around time
- Be like water
- Audit your social circle
- What problem are you trying to solve?
- The speed of Genghis Khan
- Celebrate wrong decisions
- Our obligation to imagine
- The difference between amateurs and professionals
- Corporate athletes believe in periodization
- Pioneering is lethal
- What we can learn from the mission to Pluto
- Build a starfish organisation
- Manson’s Law of Avoidance
- Think probabilistically
- Enlightening questions
- Live on death ground
- Build margins everywhere
- The new storytelling
- Be fascinating
- Forget the brand, think categories
- Time management versus time alignment
- Creating a memory of the future
- Spotting talent that whispers
- Problem-solving for the Apollo 11 mission
- Innovative thinking by using adjectives
- Doing right and doing good is not the same
- What you aim at determines what you see
- How survivor bias distorts reality
- Act like a victorious lobster
- Only the paranoid survive
- Different is better than better
- How to avoid narrow-framed decision taking?
- A message to today’s young generation
- What can companies learn from cities?
- Are you suffering from the Concorde Syndrome?
- The backward way of addressing a performance problem
- Apply the 80/20 rule in multiple ways
- Act on lead measures to reach your goal
- Are you an architect of moments that matter?
- The power of working with constraints
- Are there enough Tarahumaras in your team?
- Apply the Pareto Principle to leadership
- Create a dragonfly vision